"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.
If you would like to read more, but don't feel like randomly clicking through archives, you can find a summary of some of my favorite previous posts, with links, here. These posts also give you a good idea of what this blog is all about.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 6:00 AM
5 comments
I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.
5 Comments:
Hi - I just stumbled on your site. I love it! Keep up the good work.
On the topic of your blog summary, how would you specify the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Could you point me to the best posts dealing with that issue?
Oh - I would like to discuss much with you! I'm an ex-Darwinian but not full blown supporter of ID...I'll get back to discuss ASAP.
On the topic of your blog summary, how would you specify the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? Could you point me to the best posts dealing with that issue?
This has always confused me as well - is it something as simple as "one species can never become another" (e.g. the phenomena of speciation cannot exist).
Or does it mean that there are limits to evolutionary adaptation that prevent novel features from forming (e.g. scales cannot evolve into mammalian hairs or avian feathers)
I know that Behe attempted to answer this question in his book "The Edge of Evolution", however from what I can tell his ideas seem to have garnered very little mainstream acceptance.
It could be that the world is not yet ready for such a book, or it could be that his claims are simply wrong and have been refuted by greater minds than I.
I followed the link to the 'challenges' for 'Darwinism', but I saw no actual challenges, rather musings by a lawyer and a quasi-mathematician whose words are, frankly, nonsense. Proponants of Dembski-Johnsonism would do well to get their information from primary sources, instead of reading the propaganda churned out in pulp fiction like 'Darwin on Trial' and such.
Post a Comment
<< Home